The Catholic American Thinker seeking a return to Decencyand Critical Thinking

Website In A Nutshell:

Religion, politics and culture. Emphasis on Judeo-Christian religion, American Constitutional conservatism and American People-hood. Provides a focus-point for Orthodox Roman Catholicism, Judeo-Christian morality and Western Culture history. Promotes faith, family, tradition and property. Emphasis is on Truth, ethos, critical thinking and reason.

Website In A Detail:

To begin: Culture = Religion + Politics

The Catholic American Thinker World Focus:Where Religion Meets The World, and forms Culture.

The Catholic American Thinker American National Focus:Where OUR Religion meets OUR World and forms OUR Culture.

The morality of Western Civilization is born of the Judeo-Christian religion. This site marches under the banner of that morality and holds it up as a standard by which to measure any and every other moral standard in existence.

Morality is born of religion and grows best in family and tradition. The family is the primal social unit. As the family goes, so goes society.

The Call to Holiness is a call to change culture, not surrender to it. Any theology that has to modify itself to suit cultural fashion is irrelevant, and any theology that does not directly engage current culture is dead. Catholicism, (like Judaism, and Protestantism, and Eastern-Greek Orthodoxy,) must, at some point, engage culture; and every bit of culture needs to be engaged, not just some parts of it. Secular culture does not hesitate to challenge our religion, and that engagement takes place on a two-way street. All believers are called to draw their rhetorical swords and step out onto the field of honor.

The Catholic American Thinker provides a focus-point for

Orthodox Roman Catholicism;

American idealism;

Conservative values.

It promotes faith, family, tradition and property.

This site emphasizes critical thinking and reason. Within the realm of social/political/legal topics, for the Theist, doing good critical thinking requires pre-recognition of certain axioms, or givens, as external objective truths that guide our reasonable decision making to keep us within parameters of

You Can't Make And Omelet Without Breaking Some Eggs,and the ever coveted eventual ability to say to someone,

Shut Up And Get On The Cattle Car.

Apologetics and defense of faith, culture, the Judeo-Christian ethos, the American Ideal and Representative Government are important, and Catholic American Thinker does that. However, we tend to be an attack site more than a defense site. We go after any faith, culture, ethos, economic system, political system or other entity that falsely claims superiority and/or steps out to challenge us.

Within Catholic culture, Catholic American Thinker supports the Roman Magisterium, Catholic Orthodoxy and Tradition. Which means we attack the American counter-Magisterium, cafeteria Catholicism, heterodox teaching and general weak belief or disbelief publicly pretending at being Catholic belief.

Within the larger American culture, Catholic American Thinker supports faith, family, tradition, private property rights, free markets, free enterprise, equal rights and remedies before the law for all men, the American Constitution, representative government and the high ideals of the Founders. Which means we attack the notions of loss of representation in government, growing government, and the migration of power from the people to the government.

This means in particular that we vigorously oppose the systematic, legal secularization - which is to say, the religious cleansing - of the American government, the American public square and the American people. Despite our overwhelming Christian population, and despite our First Amendment right to open religious exercise, we are increasingly forced by civil law to be, appear to be or pretend to be atheist, in public. Noting that history’s greatest publicly professed atheists were also history’s greatest publicly professed Marxists, and were also history’s cruelest conquerors and greatest mass-murderers – Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Mao Tse Tung – we submit that social secularism, which is an extremely proactive, biased and not neutral form of atheism, is not a good path for a person, a people or a nation to travel.

Since we remain an overwhelmingly Christian nation by population, to the degree that our government makes itself secularist or atheist, to that same degree does our government cease to be a representative government. It may represent itself, or some other entity, but certainly not us, the governed.

We submit that, for any individual, group or political body, putting one’s religion aside, for any reason at all, for even an instant, is, strictly speaking, against the religion of everyone who has a real religion. There is and can be no logical reason to do such a seemingly stupid thing other than to get a decision or opinion or action that would oppose the teaching of the religion. Or to gain specific minority votes. When done by any American government “representative”, it is a practice that betrays an absolute intolerance in that representative toward the overwhelming majority of the population of America.

The guiding ethos, the moral compass, the life-directing influence, the very purpose for being of the gigantic majority of the American people is wrapped up in what is universally known as the Judeo-Christian ethos. And if the guiding ethos of the American government is not the Judeo-Christian ethos, then it is no longer a representative government, and we might well ask what it’s true purpose for being might be.

The always imperfect American Republic was designed, intended and founded to make us a nation of laws and not just of men. Our Republican form of government limits our Democracy in order to, One, provide for stability in government and a peaceful means of government succession, and Two, in all good justice, to protect minorities from the majority. In the Catholic American Thinker view, respecting, tolerating, loving and protecting minorities does not equate to granting minorities, whether collectively or individually, any special status, advantage or privilege. Nor does it equate to forcing the majority to pretend that it has no special guiding ethos, or common sense of right and wrong and moral direction, which should always, in any representative government, drive representative legislation, and the creation, enforcement, adjudication and respect for all civil law. Civil law should always be representative law. As opposed to dictated law.

Simply stated, the Catholic American Thinker supports majoritarianism and opposes minoritarianism and totalitarianism. The same representative law applies to all men equally.

We oppose all Leftist-Marxist ideological notions involving the end of international borders, the end of all national sovereignty and thus the end of the USA in favor of the Utopian ideal of a Global Village, New World Order, Borderless Society, Internationalism or one-world governance, or authority to be done by any other Leviathan State entity by any other name, including old time International Communism, the UN, or any World Court. Or any other unrepresentative entity. That means we also oppose government planned and controlled economies, and support liberty of man, private property, free markets and free enterprise, i.e., Capitalism.

Human liberty and the free market (Capitalism) should be controlled solely by the voluntary restraint of a free population imbued with Judeo-Christian morality, which must be the one and only moral code supported and not opposed by truly representative civil law and civil government. Only voluntarily restrained by that morality do we remain a civilized people.

We likewise oppose all international cross-border efforts by Islam, whose ultimate goal is the achievement of global Ummah, requiring the systematic forcible destruction of all other religions to achieve a one-world religion in blind submission to Islam, and, requiring the systematic forcible destruction of all other forms of civil government to achieve a one-world government ruled by Islamic law. This is not describing any branch or subset of Islam, but the permanent, irrevocable, mainstream orthodox teaching of Islam, out of the mouth of Mohammed, recorded in the Koran, and openly preached in every mainstream Mosque on Earth. The ultimate goal of mainstream Islam is Global Ummah, by the sword, or by any means necessary. Ask a Moslem cleric about it.

We support the sanctity of national borders and the continued existence of the United States of America, her Constitution and Constitutional government, and the strengthening and restoration of what's left of Western Culture.

The Catholic American Thinker is unabashedly Roman Catholic, unabashedly pro-Capitalist and unabashedly pro-American. We welcome open discussion with Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Jewish persuasions or denominations, as fellow travelers toward the same eternal reward. If our discussions get heated sometimes, that’s fine; at least we share a life-direction, and we’re all aiming at the same target. We likewise welcome open discussion with citizens of other nations, those with some form of representative government, and those who wish they had some form of it.

But the Catholic American Thinker may be expected to return fire and advance on any positions opposed to Catholicism in particular, Christianity in general, Judaism, Western culture, liberty of man, private property, free markets, representative government, our Constitution, our continued national existence and borders, or the original if weakly enduring American Ideal.

We submit that morality, as all the world recognizes it, has its origination and its living roots deep into Theism, i.e., theistic religions of various stripe. We submit that the highest form of morality existing in the world today may be found in Western Civilization’s Judeo-Christian ethos. And that the worst examples of immorality in the world today come out of irreligion, i.e., atheism, and out of anti-religion, i.e., secularism.

Whatever political contest is going on at any moment in time, the most important contest is always between Godliness and un-Godliness - between Truth and falsehood. Recognize that. Do not tolerate lukewarm-ness in yourself. Life itself demands passion. The man who is indifferent to religion has already forfeited his soul. The man who is indifferent to political action has already forfeited his liberty. Do not stand idly by while your destiny, and my destiny, and our destiny, just happens.

Catholic American Thinker explores and seeks to strengthen the linkages between faith, culture and ethos; the things that make of us a distinct people, and that make of distinct peoples distinct nations.

"The link between culture and faith is not only necessary for culture but also for faith. A faith that does not become culture is a faith not fully embraced, not fully appreciated and not faithfully lived."- John Paul the Great

We are overwhelmingly Christian with Representative Government. That is a vitally important if tenuous fact.

We
don’t give a damn about your race, color or other outside physical
attributes. What we’re interested in is the standard by which you
discern right from wrong, and what it is, exactly, that gives
your life purpose, direction and order. The two most vitally important
subjects to you and to yours are the very two subjects you are always
most discouraged from talking about in public. Those two forbidden
subjects are your religion, and your politics. Think about it.

Exactly what kind of a person are you?

Exactly what kind of example are you to others?

Exactly what kind of a family is yours?

Exactly what kind of a people are we?

Exactly what kind of a nation is this?

These
are vitally important topics for you to ponder, meditate on, pray over,
and – ultimately, and most importantly – they are questions that demand
a decision, and questions which you must decide.

"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."- Joshua 24:15

We hope you enjoy the WebSite and might contribute your thoughts to
it, either through your comments or by adding your own individual essays
and articles, and we pray that you may please God, and live forever.

Vic Biorseth

Added Wednesday, November 6, 2013:

We have pointed out, in the recent No Party America page among other places, the horrible results of moral, demographic and political agenda changes in America, as a direct result of the purposeful indoctrination, propagandizing and educational dumbing-down of the American electorate. It is a collectivization of thought that is supplanting old fashioned critical thinking. Critical thinking is best done one man at a time. Today, all of these radical changes in our national nature have resulted in two "bases" of voters, which are normally associated with the two great political Parties in America.

Today, the Democrat Party base is comprised of hard-core revolutionary Marxists, the gentler variety of Progressive Marxists, and the Moron Vote, who are pretty much clueless about everything.

Today, the Republican Party base is comprised of the great Tea Party Awakening, who are now increasingly aware of the fact that the Republican Party does not really represent them at all. The official Republican Party does not defend the Constitution, and the Constitution itself is what is at stake here.

Michael Voris is saying, in video, pretty much what I've been saying here in text. We're talking about the same "taboo" subjects in different ways. Here is his latest video, which prompted these words:

Never talk about sex, religion or politics. Right. That's the problem. We will begin to recover our American decency and worthiness of Constitutional Liberty when we go back to being a No Party America and our most important political arguments revolve round points of decency, morality and Christian theology.

Regards,

Vic

Finding Your Way Around.

When we changed the website URL from Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com to CatholicAmericanThinker.com, we eliminated the left column navigation buttons in favor of self-explanatory links.

Left Column Links:

The first set of internal links each link to the "Challenge" groups of articles. As each article is viewed it's related set of linked articles appears in the right column, so you can link to other articles within the same "Challenge" topic.

The next set of self-explanatory links in the left column are all to user submitted or other included articles that were not originally authored by Vic. If you submit an article for publication here, and it is accepted, a link to it will appear right here on every webpage on this website.

Right Column Links:

The first set of self-explanatory links in the right column, when present, link to more articles closely related to the article being viewed in the center column at the moment.

The last set of self-explanatory links in the right column link to articles of general interest that don't necessarily fit any pre-ordained category; they are just general commentary articles.

The Most Recent 50 Web-Pages to have been added or updated in the whole Website are listed and linked in the BLOG-ROLL page. Every time any page gets updated or commented on, it, and its comments, moves to the top of that stack of links.

(BLOG is just a cutsie-pie computer-eze transliteration of the words Web and Log; it's just a log of current website activity.)

So, pick your subject and follow the trail.

I bid you good reading, and good thinking.

Regards,

Vic

Notice:This Website un-apologetically favors divisiveness over inclusiveness, in religion, ideology and politics, as food-for-thought for the serious Judeo-Christian thinker. As such, it is more interested in quality than quantity of audience. It is not written for the unengaged or the semi-literate with a short attention span. It is written to feed that remnant fraction of Americans who will hopefully form the decent, truth-centered citizenry who will successfully continue the unique and on-going American Revolution.

The three completely incompatible, sworn, implacable mortal enemy religious, ideological and political arguments under contention in every single geopolitical contest today are:

The original and continuing American Revolution;

The original and continuing Marxist Revolution;

The original and continuing Islamic Revolution.

There is absolutely no possible
compromise settlement point between Christianity and any variation of
Marxism, or between Christianity and mainstream Islam, in which
Christianity survives.

There is absolutely no possible compromise settlement point between Constitutional America and any variation of Marxism, or between Constitutional America and mainstream Islam, in which the American Constitution survives.

Note to anonymous criticizers of the "Divisive" notice above: I will change it or remove it just as soon as any of you show me anything in all of Marxism (including the current Democrat Party) that is in any way compatible with and not antagonistic to either Christianity or the American Constitution. Show me the same thing regarding the Islamic doctrine demanding expansion of the Ummah to dominate the whole world by force if necessary, whether in the Koran or anywhere in Islamic history. Until then, the notice stands. See the Winnowing Pages.

Hover-Link Footnotes:For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" over a link.)

Web-Page Comments, Dialogues, Latest Updates

I find your site very compelling and thought provoking. Thus far, I have read your points on the home page and that of health care. I agree - profoundly agree. I am a repentant Catholic fully returned to the Church as of 2004. I currently run our RCIA program (the appalling lack of catechesis in the American Church is a spiritual holocaust).

You see what I see (though more articulately): a nation increasingly and diametrically opposed to its founding documents, founding father and founding principle (what you have termed), Judeo-Christian Ethos.

Not one Founding Fathers nor one single state of the original 13 colonies would have ratified the Constitution if they had seen the Leviathan that the federal government has become. The 10th Amendment seems to be an ornament between the 9th and 11th and nothing else - and yet is a part of the document staring us in the face.

Personally, I believe that everyone is directly or indirectly bought of with federal funds. People are more willing and states less willing to contest intrusion into their jurisdiction when they're paid off.

I'm still recoiling from the 2008 election. Four years ago, Obama would not have been a serious candidate. Aided and abetted by a press with a canine devotion that Joseph Stalin would have coveted, and who learned well the lessons of John Kerry's defeat - swore to themselves they would not let it happen again. Vetting was left for marginalized right-wing former mayors of Wasilla.

Obama is virtually a ghost with a vague yet suspicious past who sat in a anti-white, anti-American, Black Liberation Church. All his writings and grades are sealed. There is a supernatural incuriosity about this man. I believe he is diabolically protected - perhaps I don't really have a clue how much.

McCain was no barrel of laughs but I knew he loved the country. I am equally convinced that Obama does not love the country and perhaps despises it......

I apologize; I went too long for a comment. I thank you for the site and look forward to reading more.

I am trying very hard to find my way back to the Church, and I am walking through this difficult and tiring process day by day. I know that I will need sites like this to educate me one way or the other.

While the process continue, may I ask you in all kindness and as constructive criticism, to please clean up the spelling on the first page / introduction? It is rather irritating and even off-putting to read some absolute clangers on a site that purports to be an intellectual resource.

I will be following the site with some interest.

Thank you so far.

Date: Tue Jun 29 17:56:06 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Andre:

Welcome; the destination is well worth the journey, and it should get easier the farther you walk. If you read Scripture with an open heart you will be moving in the right direction; if you love history, all the better, for it makes the journey that much more enjoyable.

Thank you, but I am no intellectual or any great scholar; just a simple working man. However, I will have you know, my grammar school teacher learned me good talking. Maybe my spell-checker needs updating or something; you will have to point out all the “clangers” for me. I assume you are talking about this HOME PAGE. I just looked at it and nothing jumped out at me.

It may be a cultural thing. I have noticed that Brits and Canadians and Ausies and South Africans all have a funny way of abusing the English language, which probably is only properly spoken here in America. Even here, the Southerners and the Westerners and the Easterners all have funny accents. We are originally from Michigan, the only place without any accent and where the language is spoken most properly.

Of course, the Ohioans around here may disagree, but what do they know?

There is no real thinking here. Or at least there is no Critical Thinking. Eagleton (and, I suspect, Boudway) is traveling under several gross misconceptions, reinforced if not introduced into Western thought by Marx’s great, masterful hoax.

Chief among these misconceptions is the rather silly notion that depicts “wealth” as a fixed pie in need of “fair” division. In this conception, designed to invite envy, class warfare, and to promote violation of Thou shalt not steal, and violation of Thou shalt not covet, each billionaire becomes a billionaire only at the expense of others who are not billionaires. Hence, each billionaire “owes” something “back” to the larger community. Exactly as if he took it or stole it from someone, or from everyone.

Of course, wealth is not a fixed pie in the first place. Wealth is created, multiplied, expended, wasted and destroyed, in a never ending process. Marxists, whether of the treacherous revolutionary variety or the useful idiot variety, oppose the true nature of wealth. The treacherous revolutionary hides the truth about the nature of wealth and the useful idiot isn’t smart enough to figure it out.

Another gross misconception is revealed in the projected vision of “probable future of nuclear-armed states warring over a scarcity of resources; … ” indicating the silly belief that the world is running out of “resources”, whether food, fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal, or whatever. At this point in time, this notion is just plain stupid. Proven reserves of everything go up, not down, over time. That includes food. More of it is discovered and/or produced every year, not less.

Again, treacherous revolutionaries will hide these facts, and useful idiots are not smart enough to even seek the truth. Few educated people today have read about the famous Ehrlich – Simon bet, and who won and who lost. We talked about it in the Population Problem page, and again in the Eco-Nazi page. There are none so blind as they who will not see.

If Eagleton (and Boudway) was smart enough to objectively investigate Marx, then he should have learned about Marx’s love of Machiavelli and subsequent adoption of The Ends Justify the Means; and of his adoption of the Hegelian Dialectic, which was a well thought out method by which to achieve Machiavellian dictatorship. The whole goal is to work toward two things: chaos and anarchy so that a strong ruler will be welcomed by the masses, and the centralization of political power, so that it might be more easily seized by someone ruthless enough to seize it.

If he was either honest enough, or smart enough, he would have known and reported that the true hidden purpose behind everything Marx wrote, including his Communist Manifesto, was to get someone who was not the ruler into the position of being absolute ruler. That’s it. All the rest is just so much cover story, embellishment, camouflage and window-dressing. The whole, sole purpose behind all of Marxism is the transfer of political power, and the final achievement of absolute power.

The last line of his Communist Manifesto, “WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!” was a work of diabolical genius. That line lit the first fire of Marx’s class warfare, by alienating the employee from his own employer, and placing a socio-political wedge of open enmity and animosity between them. That one line forever made “Community Organizing” very easy for all future Marxist agent-provocateurs.

You are implying that unions are always bad and always wrong and that no workers are or ever were exploited by their employers and that is just not true. There were and are all sorts of oppressive practices in the job market and there is nothing a worker can do about it without a union. I don’t know and I don’t care who started any particular union the important thing is that collective bargaining levels the playing field and gives the worker some say.

Date: Mon Apr 04 07:26:04 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Gwen:

So does a free job market level the playing field and give the worker some say. A free job market means, of course, lots of employers and limited monopoly, so that lots of employers are forced to compete with each other for good employees, and employees have lots of free choices for jobs between employers. Laws and regulations should (and in most cases do) restrict such things as monopoly and secret collusion among employers, re price fixing, wage fixing, etc.

I have yet to see a union that was a one-shop union or one-store union or one employer union. I have yet to see a union that was not national or international, or not somehow affiliated and organizationally aligned with a national or international organization of unions. This is movement toward and into monopoly and secret collusion among employee union members, re wage fixing, benefit fixing, etc. It is precisely and exactly what unions accuse employers of doing. It is exploitation, on a grand scale.

While I agree that some of that has happened and may be happening on both sides of the argument, I submit that it has become a one-sided argument, with the unions holding the upper hand, supported as they are by the American Marxocrat political Party that is almost totally dependent upon union support for its very existence.

In the open job market, the potential employer offers a job, and offers a description of the work, expected production of the work, the work place, the time the employee is to arrive, the number of hours he is to work, the time for lunch, the time work ends, how much the employee is to be paid, arrangements for overtime, benefits, vacation time and so forth. The potential employee takes it, or leaves it, and continues his job search.

In the union shop, the union tells the employer specifics about the description of the work, what time the employee will show up to work, the time for breaks and lunch, how many hours the employee is to work, how much and what quality is involved in the production of the employee, how much the employee is to be paid, limitations and pay for overtime, vacation, paid time off, medical leave, medical benefits, retirement benefits, and so forth.

What’s wrong with this picture?

The purpose of the employer going into business was to produce a product or a service in the competitive free market for a profit. The purpose of the union is to secure a job for an employee for specified pay and benefits, and specific deducted union dues, and to hell with the product or service. There is, of course, a third player: the Marxocrat Party political office holder. The politician wants his ever increasing share of the payroll deducted union dues, while he works from his high office to further the goals of Marxism.

So the first clause in your first sentence is quite correct. I am implying that unions are always bad. In fact, I’m stating it.

Do you not see a close philosophical relationship between the goals of the burgeoning Right wing political movement in France and the Tea Party in the US? Is there a possibility of linking up here, as a beginning point to linking other such movements in other nations, so that the Right would have a movement of global scope too, to counter the global movement of the Left?

Date: Thu Apr 07 07:18:48 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jacques:

No, not really. While I’m not really familiar with any such “Right wing” movements in any other countries, I know that even the terms Right and Left do not mean the same things in other lands that they mean here in the US. The American Tea Party movement is absolutely unique in the entire world, and in world history. It is a movement to restore America to government by constitution, and, I submit, the American Constitution itself is absolutely unique in the entire world, and in all of world history. There is and can be no other quite like it.

So the Tea Party cannot be called a movement of the Right, in the usual sense of that term, even as applied in America. Neither France, nor any other country, can ever hope to have a Constitution that is the same as the American Constitution, and so neither France, nor any other country can ever hope to be the same as America.

The Tea Party does not seek to change the world; the Tea Party seeks to restore American government to be run, guided and constrained by the American Constitution, and that is a very distinct and very specific political goal, which is, again, absolutely unique in the world today, and unique in world history.

Any foreign movements that seek to restore or strengthen citizen liberty and/or representative government and/or national sovereignty and/or Judeo-Christian morality and/or national security are to be applauded and supported, wherever they occur, but there is no movement anywhere to equal the Tea Party awakening in America today. Other nations may try to emulate us, but no nation may ever hope to successfully develop the same Constitution, and so no nation can ever be quite the same as us.

Unless the Tea Party movement fails, of course; then – sooner or later – we will all be the same, and all peoples will be made equal in suffering.

If the Tea Party does not seek to change the world then why did Bush seek to establish Democracy in Iraq? Other places in your site you talk about spreading Democracy so how can you say that the Tea Party is not a global movement of the Right?

Date: Fri Apr 08 08:25:31 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jacques:

First of all, the Tea Party movement did not exist until after Bush left office. In defense of the Bush – Democracy policy, he was right, in that Democracies historically do not make war on each other. To seek to allow, support and strengthen a new Democratic government somewhere is not the same thing as trying to establish some sort of proxy USA somewhere. It is doing the next best thing, which is, to establish citizen liberty to the extent that it can be established, under representative government.

The next best thing to the American Constitutional form of government is probably the form of Constitutional Parliamentary Democracy after the model of the UK, before she descended into a Marxist-inspired mommy-state with a population of dependent little thumb-suckers directed by a huge and growing army of petty bureaucrats.

The American Tea Party movement is a purely American phenomenon with no foreign aspirations or intentions. The only people on earth today who want to establish any sort of global system of world government are Marxists, Moslems and lunatics.

-- And, unfortunately, useful idiots.

Unfortunately, since the news media is predominantly Marxist, the primary education system is predominantly Marxist, academia is predominantly Marxist, show-biz and celebritwittery are predominantly Marxist, whole political Parties are predominantly Marxist, multiple generations of citizens everywhere have been schmoozed into believing the Marxist falsehood that government knows best, and the best solution to any problem is a government solution, and the world is “inevitably” moving (evolving?) into a global community, which will somehow be wonderful. Even though it is undefined, and thus not even comparable to what we have now or had in the past.

What the Tea Party points out is that government is the problem. The Tea Party seeks to reduce government; everyone else seeks to increase it.

I recently became a follower of Rush Limbaugh, and he made me see much of the world in a new light. My views have now been modified, and changed against much of what I thought I knew all my life, and I almost feel like an actual another person. I see the reasoned approach to all that he says. Then I found your site, and you have rocked my world. I thought you were too apocalyptic and conspiratorial, and even frightening. Now, I have started following Glenn Beck – do you know he is even more apocalyptic than you? And he backs it up with solid evidences.

I have now come back to your site after some time away, and I am re-reading some of the things you wrote in light of other things I have learned. You and Glenn are scaring me to death. I know I’ve got a lot more reading and learning to do, but right now there are two questions I would like answered.

One, why did your gloomy prediction regarding Obama’s big expensive trip abroad not come true, and two, what do you think of Donald Trump as a candidate for President?

Thank you for your great volume of information.

Sandra

Date: Wed Apr 13 14:08:38 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Sandra:

Thank you, and welcome. Now that you have had your Tea Party awakening, you need to find your nearest local liberty group and join it.

You have not really recognized truly apocalyptic writing until you have looked at the Marxocrat speeches, editorials and opinion pieces that preceded every single false emergency government spending program since TARP. Stimulus I, Stumulus II, Health Care, etc., etc., etc. With every single one of them, if it didn’t pass, the world would end in absolute calamity. Every one of them was a lie. Marxist frighten the people into herds by crying wolf. That’s what they do.

Re your reference to my gloomy prediction – I think you might be talking about what I said on the Obamadinejad In Exile? webpage. If that’s not it, let me know.

In that page, I didn’t really make any precise prediction, something I rarely if ever do, but what I did was express alarm and point to possibilities. It worried me, and I said so.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is a creator of chaos and instability, as are many of his contemporaries, both in this country and elsewhere, some of them uneasy colleagues of Obama, some of them uneasy enemies of Obama. Whatever course they may be on, all of them, including Obama, are ready to turn on a dime.

That fact alone should cause unease in all of us. The one thing about chaos and instability is that it is unpredictable in itself, and what comes after it is unpredictable. That is the nature of chaos and instability. Even Obama cannot predict what particular previously planted social, economic, international or military time bomb might go off first. I would bet that Obama and his kind are generally more prepared to deal with chaos and instability at any point in time than you or me. They are causing it, and hope to exploit it in some way, or to later expropriate the ones who first exploit it.

Re The Donald, as a candidate for President – what can I say? Donald Trump may be among the worst examples of American entrepreneurs, not because of lack of business success, but because of the method used to achieve it. Trump gives every appearance of being a big time Capitalist who has adopted the Machiavellian-Marxian edict, The Ends Justify The Means. Once upon a time, everyone would have recognized that as evil; unfortunately, today is almost a commonplace, accepted maxim.

Look at the typical Trump approach to becoming filthy rich, one step at a time.

Acquire control, by hostile takeover if necessary, using as much of Other-People’s-Money as possible, another business entity.

Cut expenses to the bone, meaning, fire most of the top paid employees.

Stop paying the bills.

When the wolf is at the door, file for bankruptcy protection.

Emerge from bankruptcy paying pennies on the dollar to company creditors and vendors and retirees.

Put in cosmetic upgrades, and cut prices of goods/services below competition prices, because you accounts payable have been virtually wiped out by bankruptcy.

Run your business competition into the ground with low prices because they have bills to pay, and you don’t.

Watch your stock skyrocket, and either sell at a profit, or run it for awhile at a profit.

Accept the next Entrepreneur of the Year award, and get your face on lots of magazine covers.

Around here, we call a guy who doesn’t pay his bills a deadbeat, and when he plans ahead of time to not pay his bills, we call him a scoundrel. But, today, the whole world calls Donald Trump a brilliant, magnificent business man.

It’s the basic immorality I have a problem with. Where is his moral foundation? I don’t have to ask that question about Sarah Palin.

I agree with almost everything I have read here so far, except for the notion of “Thinking Catholic.” It seems to me that “Thinking Catholic” is restricted thinking, or thinking with tunnel-vision, as the restricted vision of a horse with blinders on. If you are restricted by Catholic Church authority from thinking in certain (or any) directions, then you are not open to correctly reading Holy Scripture and to allowing the Holy Ghost to fully enter into your life. If Thinking Catholic means restricting your thought to Catholic “Tradition” and the confines of the Catholic Magisterium then you are not truly free to think. It is not free-thinking. That means, it is controlled thinking. Do you agree or disagree?

Date: Thu Jul 21 06:44:18 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Thinking Evangelical:

I both agree and disagree.

Catholicism is more than a religion or a Church; it is an ethos; it is a family; it is a way of life; it is a tradition; it is a norm. Thinking Catholic is, therefore, a way of thinking within a family. It involves a bending of the personal will to the good of the family as well as to the good of the soul.

The good Christian subordinates his desires to the will of God. The Catholic Thinker subordinates his desires to the teaching of the Church, which actually is the best representation, in black-and-white, of the will of God that is available to man. It is collected and preserved in the Depositum Fide laid down by Christ and His Apostles, protected by the Catholic Magisterium.

If man does not subordinate his desires to the will of God, his desires will eventually subordinate his thinking to the will of Satan. It is not impossible for one man alone to subordinate his desires to the will of God; Abraham did it. But, it is much, much easier to subordinate ones desires to the will of God from within a strong family that strongly supports that effort.

Thinking Catholic does not mean “controlled” thinking in so much as it means “correct” thinking, when correct thinking means subordinating it to the will of God. All you have to do is look at the historical Marxists, at the atheists, or at the Democrats, to see where absolutely free-thinking leads man.

Your submission was one, long, nonsensical and ridiculous screed, containing, point by point, positions that are opposed and refuted all over this site. Why you would seek support here is beyond reason. Your core beliefs defy credulity. You are, in a word, nuts, sir. This site is vehemently opposed to every single thing that you hold dear. You can read, one would assume; the only remaining possibility for why you would seek support here is that you might be nuttier than a fruitcake.

Sorry, but I will not publish your wild rant bordering on lunacy, or any of your supplied links. This site stands for truth, faith, family, tradition, property and American liberty. It’s nice to know that you have an alternative, but – no thanks.
Regards,
Vic

Date: Fri Jun 29 15:17:41 2012
From: Jim
Email: Location: Comment:

I have been looking around this site in my free-time, but have not been able to find anything into your views on various free speech cases. For example, I am curious about your view on cases similar to those of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at soldiers' funerals, or what your views on what speech should be protected and what should not be.

Date: Sat Jun 30 06:50:03 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jim:

The example of falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is always used, and agreed with. I put the anti-war protests at family funerals you speak of in the same category as the desecration of a Church, or the painting of a swastika on a Synagogue. To interfere in such a hateful way in a family’s funeral of a veteran should be a legally actionable offense, at least in civil court if not criminal court. The disgusting irony of it is that the perpetrators would not be free to demonstrate if not for the previous sacrifice of many veterans.

That being said, when you look at “hate speech” as legislated or regulated, you see that it is always applied against people who oppose something immoral, such as homosexuality, never against someone who champions something wrong. Call it a sin, or just speak against it, and you are mentally ill – a homophobe – and a hater. Laws regarding hate speech and hate crimes are just stupid, unnecessarily complexifying and counter productive. A crime is already a crime. Determining whether or not someone indulged in hate while committing the crime is not only difficult, but not even necessary. What’s the difference? Is there such a thing as a love crime?

In my view, desecrating American symbols, such as the American flag, should be held in the same category as desecrating a Church, which should be made illegal everywhere. People publicly crapped on the flag back in the sixties, and they’re now doing it again in the OWS movement. When citizens show so much clear opposition and animosity to the very idea of America, there should be a punishment established to fit the crime. Banishment comes to mind.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Mon Jul 02 14:09:46 2012
From: Jim
Email: Location: Comment:

Vic,

Do you consider the Westboro people anti-war? I do not think that is there main message.

And I completely agree with you on hate crime. With rare exceptions, the intent and actual carrying out of a crime is what matters in the criminal justice system, not the motive. I personally disagree with you though on flag burning and that stuff. The difference between desecrating a church or a synagogue and burning or desecrating an American flag is that the former are private property, while someone who destroys a flag is destroying their own property. As you said "A crime is already a crime" and people who desecrate houses of worship should be punished for property damage, and not have their motive come into play. The burning of flags, one of the most insensitive and hated actions one can commit, is the exact kind of speech that should be protected. We should protect the most vile speech, and the speech that we disagree with most.

Thanks for the response,

-Jim

PS I did not realize my email address would be published in my previous posting, and I was wondering if were at all possible if it could be removed. If deleting the email address would eliminate the comment as well, then do not worry about it and feel free to leave it. Thanks

Date: Mon Jul 02 20:23:16 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jim:

The message of the funeral disrupters is precisely anti-war. It is based on a warped and twisted interpretation of Thou shalt not kill, by which they would condemn David, and Joshua and a host of other Biblical figures. It’s a classic example of how twisted a message can become the more it divorces itself from the original teaching authority.

I disagree with your view of those who burn and squat over American flags to publicly desecrate them. Done by foreigners in any foreign land, it might be more excusable; but here, in America, done by American citizens, under free speech? No. They don’t even honor the blood shed for their speech rights.

Citizen flag desecration is a very strong message of anti-Americanism and a statement that the perpetrator despises the nation the emblem stands for. It should be some sort of legal offense. If they cannot do so much as pledge allegiance to the flag, and mean it, and if they take the opposite approach and spit on it, then they would be happier somewhere else, and America would be safer without them. Once someone goes so far as to make it so abundantly clear that he despises his country, he should be considered to be an actual enemy of it. I take people at their word. If they say the hate America, I believe them.

See the On Tolerating Intolerance page for how I feel about tolerating the most intolerant of people. I see little difference between the devout Moslem and the equally devout anti-American American citizen. Both seek and intend the eventual destruction of America, one way or another.

Desecrate your Church, and you will likely be kicked out of it. Why should your country be any different?

You remind me of Fred Phelps. I have read several of your pages on this site and actually really like it. I am likely going to start posting comments as well, but I did want to address something with the owner of this site. Is it Vic? I think so. On your homo-Nazi page, I was highly offended as a Christian that you would speak about other people with no regard either for their say (which I can understand by the way. It is your site.), or for Christian charity. As a Roman Catholic man, I feel very strongly that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. However, I do not think that making a blanket implication and perhaps (haven't read but a few pages) said outright, any and all people who are pro-gay in any way, are like the Nazis, is. That is not the love of Christ, my brother. The love of Christ does not compare people to other people. The love of Christ compares others to Christ. And secondly, I don't recall ever, at any place or time, ever having had a gay try to recruit me. I've never seen it. If it exists, show it to me. I have seen not one ounce of proof, neither in my own study, or (thus far) on your site. Thirdly, I really love your page on Marxism that I read. It was quite good and I'll go back to it. Thanks, and I hope to hear back from you.

-Earl Harris

Date: Sun Jul 08 06:31:32 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Earl:

Perhaps your problem is that, as you say, you haven’t read much yet; or, perhaps it is that you are super-sensitive to “the other” as is in vogue these days. I attach the word Nazi to political movements aimed at forcing all of society to go in a certain direction. These negative titles have little or nothing to do with people who are not agitating, demonstrating, advertising, activating or politically manipulating the culture in a negative direction.

I wrote the Eco-Nazi page to address the silly twits who seek to legislate the weather and the climate for us, for our own good. I wrote the Femi-Nazi page to address the silly twits who seek to force gender-equality nuttiness on firemen, infantrymen and NFL Linebackers, for our own good. And I wrote the Homo-Nazi page to address the silly twits who intend to force open homosexuality into every single aspect of public and private life, including schools, boy scout camps, entertainment, religious life, military life and politics – again, for our own good.

Regarding those homos who are not activist or part of the “movement,” I simply condemn their “sexual orientation” choice as abnormal, unnatural and sinful, and leave it at that. Those who say homosexuality is normal need some remedial elementary arithmetic studies. Those who say homosexuality is natural need some remedial elementary biology studies. Those who say homosexuality is not sinful need some remedial elementary Scripture studies. Those who are truly convinced that homosexuality is normal, natural and not sinful have been trained to think that way, by their teachers, who were trained by their teachers, probably in public schools.

All of these “Nazi” movements where they were not invented by some variant of the larger Marxist movement, were co-opted by Marxism. In every case, “types” are separated, “divide and conquer” division and class warfare is intensified, government authority is increased, special laws and regulations are encouraged at the national level, and power is migrated from the people to the government. All favoring wrong over right, and all at the expense of individual liberty.

And all, quite clearly, at the expense of simple common sense.

Do you condemn active homosexuality or not? That is a yes or no question.

What kind of a people are we? More importantly, what kind of a people are we to become if more “Christian” Americans like you continuously acquiesce on sin and will not defend Judeo-Christian moral standards?

Regards,

Vic

PS: Are you actually saying that homosexual recruitment, seduction, and even homosexual rape, has never, ever occurred? And you base that solid belief solely on the fact that no one has yet tried to teach or convince you that there is absolutely no difference between homosexual and heterosexual life choices, and that you personally have not yet been seduced or raped by a homosexual? I just want to be absolutely clear here.

I never mentioned homosexual rape or seduction so it would have been impossible for me to say that it has never occurred. I did however say that I have never once had someone try to recruit me. That statement stands. I believe that that has happened in the same way that I believe in underwear bombers. It does happen. How often and whether that is to be associated with homosexuality or out right insanity is the bigger question. Both exist. It is highly unlikely in my mind to consider that an entire group of any people is militant, although I must admit that I speak from both sides of my mouth because I do not believe that Allah or his followers mean me good. Regarding my lack of defense for Judeo-Christian standards, I respond by saying that that wasn't the purpose of my letter; Had it been, I would have.

Coincidentally, I also didn't tell you how much I like Chinese food. It simply wasn't part of the letter. Concerning your yes or no question - No. The Church teaches that homosexual conduct, not homosexuality itself, is to be condemned. The same Holy Mother Church teaches that homosexuality itself is gravely disordered, and that "homosexuals are called to chastity," neither of which is condemnation for homosexuality itself. If that is to be condemned, then so must be heterosexuality, regardless of whether the individual in question is active. Yes, though, I do condemn homosexual conduct, as the Church is very clear on Her teachings. As far as this comment is concerned, I think that I have responded to everything that I needed to. Should I have missed something, let me know, and I will be glad to respond to it.

Actually, though, I still disagree with your wording, but now that I have heard back from you and know your intention, it makes more sense. And yes, part of any problem is not reading all the information given. I have been looking back over your site and enjoy it for the most part. I should also say in my own defense, that the reason I messaged you before I continued reading is because I needed to hear back from you and be able to understand your reasoning for the language used. I felt that it would have been disrespectful to God, you, and myself to continue looking at a site that has said something that - at the time - I could not see as a Christian comment until I heard back from the one who wrote it, and saw the reasoning for it.

Thanks for the site. I will be back. God bless.

Date: Mon Jul 16 06:04:17 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Earl:
The first lie was of the order

”Did God say, “You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” followed by
“You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

I submit that this was a lie aimed at recruitment and seduction. I concede that adding rape into the mix was hyperbole.

However, every time you ever read or heard statements that homosexuality is normal, natural or not sinful, from any source whatsoever, you have been subjected to recruitment and seduction. Even the innocent-sounding proclamation that homosexuals are born homosexual is a lie, of the flagrant and categorical variety, with absolutely no empirical evidence to back it up. Furthermore, the ad homonym attack on the messenger rather than the message, which says that all homosexuality opponents are mentally ill, i.e., suffering from homophobia, is likewise a flagrant categorical lie aimed at any opposition to the recruitment and seduction effort.

Your initial challenge

”And secondly, I don't recall ever, at any place or time, ever having had a gay try to recruit me. I've never seen it. If it exists, show it to me. I have seen not one ounce of proof, neither in my own study, or (thus far) on your site.”

clearly indicated that you did not believe that homosexual recruitment even existed.

No I never denied having said that. Recruitment and seduction and rape are all different things. I had a recruitment attempt placed on me when I was 18 and was asked to join the armed forces - I declined. You see, recruitment only works if the one being recruited doesn't mind. Rape absolutely exists and so does seduction. They exist in the gay community. They exist in the straight community. So, no. I will grant that everyone has loopholes, hyperbole, or whatever in what they say. The reality is that everyone, even Christ Himself told stories with the intention of conveying a particular message, and so at no time did He necessarily include all the information there was - just the information needed for what He had to say. Dito. Would stay on longer but frankly too tired to right now. I'll get back on here tomorrow or the next day. Have a good one.

Date: Tue Jul 17 06:23:07 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Earl:

Any time the great tempter seeks to fraudulently convince someone that something untrue is true, that is an effort at both recruitment and seduction. It is an effort to convince the potential victim of the attractiveness of the object of the fraud, and the pleasantness of participation in it.

The problem is that all such efforts are not born of evil. Discernment is always required. The “Uncle Sam Wants You!” poster is an effort at recruitment; it is also very seductive to the young boy becoming a man with visions of heroic adventure.

Go read again the Genesis story of the conversation between the serpent and the woman.

There really is no such thing as Judeo-Christian ethos in the context of Orthodox Roman Catholicism. The Jewish people and the religion of the Jews is now and has always been in opposition to Jesus and His message. Read Father Denis Fahey. The United States is not now, nor has it ever been a Christian country, by any standard. The majority of the Founding Fathers were Masons, and as such, anti-Christian and especially anti-Catholic Christian. The Enlightenment values, upon which our nation was founded, were entirely based on antipathy for the Catholic Church. I certainly agree that there is a dissident agenda. I have unfailingly noticed this every time I go to Church, and no matter what Catholic Church I attend. It is present at the Traditional Tridentine Mass. It is present at the Novus Ordo. It is present in the city and in the suburbs. It is there in rich parishes and poor. It is literally manifested everywhere: on EWTN, the internet, every venue that discusses Catholicism. Every venue and every religious order seems to have been subverted. Even the break away groups are heretical and crazy. I just keep wondering what is the moral course of action under these circumstances?

Date: Sat Oct 13 14:18:11 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Mike:

There is such a thing as Judeo-Christian Ethos in American culture; Roman Catholicism has its own particular ethos, which is more symbiotic with than antagonistic to the American ethos. Catholicism is tolerant of other faiths, and America is tolerant of Catholicism. (At least on paper.)

It cannot be said that Judaism is now and has always been in opposition to Jesus and His message, since Jesus was a Jew, and all the first disciples were Jews, and they didn’t stop being Jews when they followed Jesus.

The United States is now and has always been a Christian nation, by every logical standard. Although many of the Founders were Masons and even Deists, I reject the notion that they were anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. Quite to the contrary, they took great pains to not be anti-Christian or anti-Catholic.

I submit that many of the Founders and Framers would vehemently disagree with your statements, particularly Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas stone, Charles Carroll, James McHenry, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Danl Carroll, and any other delegates or representatives from the original Roman Catholic theocracy of Maryland.

I submit further that the American Founders rose above the Enlightenment values, and founded this nation on Judeo-Christian values. It was the French Revolution, not the American that tried to base a new society on purely secular values.

As far as what we can do to change all this, all I can say is, get in the game, at whatever level you can, and do as much as you can. In American culture, go to your town hall and speak up. And vote, as if your nation depended upon it. In Catholic culture, get on your Parish Council, participate in meetings. Speak the truth and be not afraid.

Perhaps nothing is more efficacious than fasting and prayer.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sat Oct 13 17:07:59 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Mike:

I looked up Fr. Denis Fahey, and from what I’ve seen so far it looks like he was duped by at least one fraud. He apparently embraced the fraudulent document known as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a hoax out of 1903 Russia. It was purported to be minutes of a meeting of Jewish leaders of a conspiracy to gain control of the world through destroying Gentile morality and controlling banks, finance and the press. The meeting never took place; this is a well known hoax. Hitler used it to his advantage in scapegoating the Jews. By his order, it was read in German classrooms. It was thus somewhat instrumental in committing the holocaust.

You seem to have worked out a lot of "ethese"in your mind. Is ethese the plural of ethos? But, you honestly reveal a basic lack of understanding of many of the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.

I strongly question whether you were raised as a Catholic or went to Catholic grade school back in the 50s and 60s. If it is possible to keep any opening in your mind after you have so thoroughly worked it all out to your obvious satisfaction, I once again suggest that you read Father Denis Fahey and Father Leonard Feeney. I'm sure you have heard that Father Feeney is a heretic, but he is not a heretic, nor was he ever a heretic. If I were putting up a website this extensive on your topics, I would definitely want to make sure I was putting out the TRUTH. Check out Fahey and Feeney, what can it hurt?

Date: Sun Oct 14 06:20:55 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Mike:

The word ethos (Greek) means being moral, or, showing moral character for an individual, or, character, when describing the guiding ideals of a community or an ideology. The plural is ethe or ethea. And yes, I have worked out several ethea in my tiny little mind; the ethos you will find at the link above, if you click it, contains the rudiments of the Judeo-Christian ethos that guides America, stemming from what Benjamin Franklin referred to as “the American Christian religion”. And, I have described the Marxist guiding ethos as being based upon the three popular sayings of the typical Marxist, which are:

The ends justify the means.

You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.

Shut up and get on the cattle car.

And, I have described the guiding ethos of the Democrat Party as being a mixture of the guiding ethos of Marxism and the guiding ethos of
BMDFP10
s and Clintons.

Re Fr. Feeney, and the aforementioned Fr. Fahey, you seem to have an affinity for anti-Semitic priests. Anti-Semitism is not orthodox Catholic teaching. If you want to be an orthodox Roman Catholic, then I suggest you align yourself in faith and obedience to the official teaching of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded on Peter, not on any particular priest who argues with the Roman magisterium about the “correct” interpretation of any Church doctrine. Otherwise, do not refer to yourself as an “orthodox” Roman Catholic.

There is a name for Western Culture Christians who oppose the authority of the Pope, and that name is Protestant.

Why you say “the American Chrisitian religion”? Should you not say “the American religion”? Your country say freedom of religion. What of Buddha? What of Muhammad?

Also you say Christian, but you don’t like other kinds. How you do such and still say freedom of religion?

Date: Mon Oct 15 06:47:44 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Raj:

America is quite a mixture of cultures combined into a larger national culture. In the beginning of American national history, we began life as thirteen colonies, each one of which was a theocracy – a government with an imposed religion – and each of these thirteen colonies established a particular Christian denomination as the colony’s official faith in their law. All were Christian, hence, we were a Christian nation at our founding.

When the Constitution was debated and established, it eliminated the idea of any official national denomination. However, the guiding ethos – the culture, the character and the moral norms – of the Founders and the Framers remained Christian. Our legislated law was and is based upon that Christian morality. This means, at the core, our culture and our representative law most properly supports, or was originally intended to support,

The sanctity and protected nature of the family, and to parental first-authority over their own children. (From Honor thy father and they mother.)

The sanctity and protected nature of life, and the requirement of non-violent and non-forceful social interaction. (From Thou shalt not kill.)

The sanctity and protected nature of private property. (From Thou shalt not steal.)

The sanctity and protected nature of the marriage covenant. (From Thou shalt not commit adultery.)

The sanctity and protected nature of truth, and the requirement to profess it. (From Thou shalt not bear false witness.)

Now, I am a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism is a very large sub-culture within America. While everyone is not properly predisposed, and therefore not invited, to the Catholic communion rail, that exclusivity is strictly limited to this particular Catholic American sub-culture.

When I leave my Church and step out into the larger American culture, there I hope to be a “leaven” in the larger society and try to do my small part to move it toward the good, in so much as I can. I rub elbows with other Christians of all variety, and with Jews of all variety. We discuss and argue in our Town Halls; we work together in the work place; we stand side-by-side in the voting booths and in the jury boxes, we march side by side in the ranks of our military and we get along just fine, because we all recognize those basic, fundamental right-and-wrong rules of social behavior that came down from the Mountain with Moses, and that make of us a good and decent people. While we might not all get along perfectly, we do get along, a lot better than in most other places.

As for followers of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., they are perfectly welcome here, many are here, and there doesn’t seem to be any real problem with that. The important thing is that, whatever culture or ethos they bring with them should not seriously conflict with our own national guiding ethos or our representative law, which, in a “perfect” America, would be the same. We simply cannot allow any ethos that opposes ours to begin driving the legislative or legal bus here. So others are quite welcome here so long as they can accept and live within our representative law.

And that points out the radical differences between us in America, and you in Sri Lanka, and everyone else everywhere, and Islam. Islam is an aggressive and invasive radical theocracy – a combination of church, state and law – that intends, in its own “holy” book, to dominate the world, by force if necessary. As pointed out in multiple pages on this site, Islam is by its very nature diametrically opposed to the American Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, and it should not be welcomed here at all, because all it does to any non-Islamic land is pose a menace and a threat to national sovereignty itself. It is the only “religion” that I know of that intends to eliminate and replace all other religions and all other governments.

Fathers Fahey and Feeney are/were not anti-Semites. It is obvious from this remark that you have never read either of them. It is likewise obvious from this remark that you are not familiar with the teachings of the Popes and the Church prior to Vatican II. Their "ethos" (Feeney and Fahey) is in complete accord with ALL of the teachings of the Church prior the "ethos" of modernism, beginning in the late 19th C. and escalating until today. Because Father Feeney was simply teaching what the Church has ALWAYS taught, and in fact what Jesus Christ Himself taught, it was preposterous to even suggest that he was excommunicated for heresy. And, HE WAS NOT EXCOMMUNICATED for heresy. I don't really expect you to explore what I'm saying because it might mean that you don't have it all figured out and it’s pretty clear that you have a different agenda.

"Madison’s ideas dovetailed nicely with Jefferson's belief that the ideal moral framework is one in which there is a vast proliferation of inconsequential denominations and independent churches, each competing with the next. "Freedom," Madison said, "arises from a multiplicity of sects." That is because no one body can attempt to impose orthodoxy upon another. Jefferson similarly opined that the best way "to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them." It is further proof that the First Amendment achieves the gentle but certain neutralization of serious religious activity. Attentive study of the Founders' actions and beliefs makes clear that "freedom of religion" did indeed mean "freedom from religion," since the predominant views of the eighteenth century held that the only moral system entitled to respect was one entirely "rational" and voluntary. Revealed religion does not make the mark.

As for the Christian influence of men like Charles Carroll, the Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, it may well be that Carroll sincerely viewed the First Amendment as "terms of peace," alleviating decades-long oppression of his co-religionists and permitting the faith to develop unhindered by political considerations. This, Craycraft points out, was the perception of many ordinary Americans, but not that of key figures who shaped and implemented national policy. The actual course of American history, of which the current phase of obscene neo-paganism is an inextricable part, is indebted to the original plan to transform America into a deistic state. At best, sincere Christians have fought a rear-guard action in a battle they were meant to lose."

When I wrote "Good One," I was not commenting on your response about the Protocols which was not even written when I wrote that.

I find it pretty dishonest and annoying that you would position my comment there, obviously intending that people be misled into thinking that you really scored with your response.

Father Fahey does not even speak one word about the Protocols in any single book which I have read that he has written. Not one single word. I see who runs this website, and it isn't a Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise.

Date: Tue Oct 16 05:34:42 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Mike:

My my. You seem to be upset.

Re yours of Mon Oct 15 18:54:44 2012:

Fathers Fahey and Feeney were, indeed, anti-Semitic.

Fr. Fahey believed in a grand conspiracy between Freemasonry and Judaism, and that it was a cabal of Freemasons and Jews who succeeded in the Communist revolution in Russia and who were behind Communism itself. His only reason for opposing the IRA was that it leaned Communist, and Communism, to Fr. Fahey, was secretly manipulated by Freemasons and Jews. He further believed that Freemasons and Jews were the worldly counterparts, or servants, of those demons bent on opposing the Church. He saw a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to oppose the “programme of Christ.” Fr. Fahey was the chief inspiration of America’s Fr. Charles Coughlin, probably America’s most famous anti-Semitic Catholic priest, and the most famous because of his successful radio broadcasting, and his publication “Social Justice.”

Fr. Feeney, too, saw a secret conspiracy between Communism, Freemasonry and Judaism. He wrote that “the Jews” were behind Freemasonry, Secularism, Communism and the anti-hate drive, which was encouraging a destructive social tolerance of all that opposes the Church. Some of his writings:

Jewish invasion of our country – our culture under siege.

The fight for the Holy City – Efforts of the Jews to control Jerusalem.

The rejected people of Holy Scripture; why the Jews fear the Bible.

The Judaising of Christians by Jews – tactics of the Church’s leading enemies.

A sure defense against the Jews – what our bishops can do.

An unholy people in the Holy Land – the actions of the Jews.

You are the one who brought up the topic of heresy and excommunication regarding Fr. Feeney, not me. You are arguing with yourself here, for I never said anything about it. Apparently Fr. Feeney held a more literal and exclusive interpretation of Ecclesiam null salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) which might indicate that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not saved, and he argued with the Church about it, believing his interpretation was correct, and that of the Roman magisterium was wrong.

And, incidentally, the Heresy of Modernism got itself started a whole lot earlier than the late 19th century.

Re yours of Mon Oct 15 19:21:42 2012 and Mon Oct 15 22:05:50 2012:

Not too sure what you’re driving at, unless you are recommending some sort of Catholic theocracy for America. As I have said in Church and State and elsewhere all over this site, there is no such thing as a Constitutional principle of Separation of Church and State, since such a thing cannot be found in the Constitution. It remains for a future Congress to set aside the unconstitutional legal precedent that established it in law, having the effect of successful legislation from the bench.

I think you are kind of conspiracy-prone, Mike. Men must be free to make the decisions necessary for salvation; it must be of their own free will. Would you have the state impose Catholicism upon the citizenry?

The religious political motive driving us should be to oppose secularism and anti-Judeo-Christian morality. There is nothing wrong and everything right with the religious Jew along side of us. If you want to live in an absolute Catholic theocracy, then the best advice I can give is to emigrate to Vatican City.

Re yours of Mon Oct 15 22:21:29 2012:

Submissions come in to this site’s email with a date-time stamp on them, and they generally get processed in date-time order. If I am here and at the computer when one comes in, if I’m not busy with something else, I handle it then; otherwise, I handle it later. Often there will be quite a lag between when one comes in and when I approve and publish it, but once in awhile I get into almost chat mode with someone if the timing is right.

Based on the date-time stamp, your comments are right where they should be. Don’t get upset that I don’t handle them all in some other sequence via clairvoyance or something; I’ve never been very good at that sort of thing.

Forgive please bothering. What about first amendment when you say no separation? Does not supreme court decide such?

Date: Thu Oct 18 05:48:40 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Raj:

Here is our First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that, regarding religion, it places two restrictions on Congress, and no restrictions on anyone else.

Congress may not establish an official state religion in law.

Congress may not interfere with the free and open exercise of religion.

The Amendment places no religious restrictions on anyone else, and there is no mention of any “separation” between Church and state. See the Separation of Church and State article for a brief history and a refutation of the whole so-called “principle” of separation.

Here is Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

This means that Congress holds the exclusive privilege of making new law. Neither of the other two branches of government may make new law. The Black decision in the 1947 Everson case (see the link above) had the effect of making new law, which did not exist before this decision; it was not legislated law, and it was not representative law, and Congress should have immediately set it aside. It remains for a future Congress to do that.

It had the effect of changing the government’s behavior toward the citizenry, and of restricting citizen behavior. It was an unconstitutional decision, and as an unrepresentative, unlegislated decision violating the Constitution, it should be declared by Congress to be nul and void as any legal precedent in any and all future legal procedures or adjudications.

This action would not allow the government to establish any official state religion; it would stop the government from interfering with the free, open and public exercise of Christian religion. It would not touch the First Amendment, except to restore it to its original intent.

I happened upon your blog "Modernism: The Modernist Heresy," as I was searching for a Catholic scholar that was adept at the study of St. Augustine's letters opposing Faustus of Mileve. It seems to me that Raymond E. Brown's theories match Faustus of Mileve's more closely than they do St. Augustine's.

The reason I'm searching is because I read Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity (a Georgetown University theology textbook in the 1950's--no more, I'm sure), read Archbishop Fulton Sheen's doctoral dissertation "God and Intelligence in Modern Man" (in which Sheen discusses the modernist philosophers at length)and with all that under my belt thought it would be great to join my parish Bible study group. There, I was introduced to the work of Raymond E. Brown--who, I was told when I bristled at his theories--one could not question. Well, that's ridiculous, I said. He questioned 2,000 years of Catholic theology, who is he? I left the class, but first I gave the majority of the very elderly students a copy of Msgnr. Kelly's opposition paper to Brown.
Brown's theories are everywhere in Catholicism and in every Catholic University. It's no wonder so many have fallen away from the Church especially the college educated youth.

Yesterday, after Mass, these Pauline Brothers were selling Bibles. I asked if they had a Bible with footnotes to Old Testament prophesies in the margin without Raymnnd E. Brown and his Q theory because I don't accept it. They told me to get a St. James Bible. I said that was a Protestant Bible and I wanted a Catholic Bible--they said if I didn't accept Raymond E. Brown that I wasn't a Catholic! God help us all.
So, since Raymond E. Brown is standing between me and my search for Christ's truth, and he has haunted my quest for the last six months, and practically single-handed destroyed Catholicism and Thomistic theology, I'm furious (and that may be a good thing!) Yesterday, I also read a paper signed by a ton of Catholic Theologians called "On All Our Shoulders." It's an attack on Paul Ryan. One signer's name sounded familiar--Charles Comosy. I remembered reading last February a paper in medical ethics by Guibilini and Minerva called "Afterbirth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?" and there was only one response from one Catholic theologian--Charles Comosy--I was horrified at what he said.

So, my quest has led me to trying to counter all of these people and let those in opposition, like me, be aware.

I think that maybe we should all request a proper Catholic Bible that reflects the Church’s proper teachings and not Raymond E. Brown’s.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but I’m sure you can relate.

Sincerely,

Maureen

Date: Mon Oct 22 19:23:52 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Maureen:

It’s so good to hear from another sane searcher. It gets lonely sometimes, doesn’t it?

I have encountered pretty much the same thing in formal studies at the Athenaeum of Ohio LPMP program of the archdiocese of Cincinnati back when it was under Archbishop Pelarczyk. I wrote lightly about some of it in the various Cafeteria Catholic pages on this site, and also in the Historical-Critical Crap page. I completely agree with your assessment of the historical-critical method applied to paranormal literature in general, and the conjectured-into-being “Q” theory in particular.

This is the sort of thing that may be expected when clerics and theologians fool themselves into aping material scientists and trying to apply empiricism to the ephemeral and the paranormal. This sort of thing can only point the way to a weakening if not loss of faith.

It’s kind of interesting that most Catholic Bible study groups somehow turn out to be or end up being classes of some sort. I agree that a priest or someone who has been through seminary should be present to keep things on the orthodox side of the street, but it seems to me that the Protestants – the ones who reject historical-criticism – are one step ahead of us here. They just dig into it.

A lady fellow parishioner has been (and may still be) a committed regular in a Bible study group that is predominated by Protestants. Her only complaint, and it is not a strong one, is that no Catholic may “facilitate” at the discussions, because facilitators must swear a sort of oath or promise that they consider Scripture to be the sole authority in Christianity, and, of course, Catholics cannot do that. And, almost everybody there holds a Bible that is, as you know, several books light. She is quite aware of some of the major errors in the King James; knowing that, she is comfortable that it and other Protestant interpretations are not enough different from ours to cause any significant argument on issues of faith and morals. But at least no one is trying to work “Q” into the discussion, or downplay any miracles.

I have learned, the hard way, that all “official” accredited Catholic teaching institutions and accredited teachers are not the best sources of good Scripture education, or even good Catholic theology. So, it would appear, have you.

Welcome to the club.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Thu Jul 18 23:21:18 2013From: JillEmail:Location:Comment:

Vic, I am speaking for two families with children coming of age. We are from a small agricultural community with one Catholic church within 80 miles, and it is so liberal as to be disgusting. The farm is our life and we cannot relocate. We would all prefer our children remain on the farm or very nearby for family support, both ways. But all the young people around here of marrying age appear as loose and immoral as anything on TV and the situation is getting worse over time. Have you had any luck finding the priest you have been looking for, and do you have any suggestions for us finding a priest and starting a new church?

Date: Fri Jul 19 06:09:48 2013From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Jill:

No, it isn't that easy to start a new Catholic Church. Your bishop would have to do that, and if your Church is as liberal as you say, the odds are pretty good that your bishop is that liberal too. The best way to change things for the better is to persistently and patiently change your existing Church from the inside. Stick to the Catechism and calmly present the Church position with consistency. Truth will always win in the end. You might introduce your children coming-of-age to CatholicMatch.com to meet others of more consistent Catholic faith. Anything recommended by Fr. Frank Pavone can't be any worse than what you're seeing.

The recent verdict and subsequent manipulated trial of George Zimmerman prompted by the Justice Departments involvement as well as the Presidents various comments on this matter comes as a shock. The scales of justive have been tilted in favor of declaring guilt before the factual investigation of the incident, what has become of the concept of, innocent until proven guilty? The fact that Travon Martin's attack and assault on George Zimmerman is presumed to be justified is evident in the mind of many... The real test of self defense and the subsequent use of a justifiable action to effect that defense appears to have been qualified by those injuries in clear evidence of the wounds to the face and head of George Zimmerman. Unfortunately the public, media, as well as the Justice Department's involvement in pursuit of pressing charges via a perception of public opinion has managed to tip the scales of justice in an arbitrary manner not unlike, Guilty until proven innocent. I might add that the President's remarks and evident sympathies only contributed to this perception of guilty unti proven innocent. Now that s verdict has been rendered, those involved in promoting guilt after the factual defense and trial continues to reflect the clear bias that began this epic journey into a balatant disregard for the constitutional protections afforded an individual. That so many of what was once perceived as rational thinking represenatives of the civil rights movement as well as the involvement by elements of the government and our chief executive has created the basis for the shock that i reference. It would appear the post raciaL era that was lauded with the election of this president has failed to materialize. The opportunity to unify the people of this nation appears to have been squandered by a self evident bias and self interest amongst a large number of the population of this nation. The complicity of racism is prevalent among many that should have learned the lessons that Dr King gave his life to promote. The essence of character rather than the color of one's skin appears to have been dismissed somewhere along the way, to say nothing of the apparent dismissal of clear and rational thinking. That an assault on an individual with serious intent to do bodily harm is now condidered justifiable for simply inquiring as to ones presence in a neighborhood setting has set a new precident for uncivilized behavior. This is the shocking revelation of the verdict aftermath.

Date: Sun Jul 28 21:13:49 2013From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Andrew:

Agreed.

Unlike most others, I do not believe the President is stupid, or lacks the facts of the matter, or speaks too soon, or any of that. I believe he is evil. He is a manipulator of factions, and race is a faction. He is a divider, and a class warrior of the old Marxist school. But his motivation is not strictly Marxist; it is, rather, Selfist. He manipulates Marxists, too.

He is using the DOJ, and other government agencies as well, such as the State Department, the IRS and the EPA, as Alinskyite-type community organizing tools to promote his own personal agenda. He will use anything he can use and any one he can use to increase his own personal power.

And he will very carefully not leave his fingerprints on any of it.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Fri Aug 16 04:29:31 2013From: PrometheusEmail:Location:Comment:

Vic,

Some of your thinking is off track. Your response to Jim above is a good example. His question regarded free speech, and your response indicated that the Westboro Baptist Church position was primarily anti-war, when it was in fact anti-homosexual, more specifically, anti- the "don't ask, don't tell" military rule. But that doesn't matter much, because your response would have been pretty close to the same, although slightly more aligned with the Westboro Baptists because of your strong anti-homosexual standing.

But to the larger question of free speech, you seem to oppose it in the most important areas, which would be the ones most offensive, and the ones the framers of the Constitution specifically intended to protect. In your Three Fatal Oversights, Outlaw Islam and Outlaw Marxism, you show that you are opposed to the expression or even holding of ideas that do not conform to America as constituted.

Note that John Adams defended the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre, although he disagreed with what they had done. Everyone deserves to be heard. That is what free speech is supposed to be about.

How can you seek to outlaw that with which you disagree, and still claim to love the First Amendment?

Prometheus

Date: Fri Aug 16 07:42:11 2013From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Prometheus:

I stand corrected; the Westboro Baptists appear to be primarily motivated as you say. However, their actions were against the memories and families of American fighting men, regardless of sexual orientation, in a blanket attack on military, using any funeral that presented itself, in deliberate attempts to disrupt and hurt the family and the memory of the departed.

Re the webpages you mention on this site, there is a huge difference between supporting free speech, including the most offensive speech to me or to anyone, and supporting movements that aim at the destruction of the nation. Avowed Marxists and Moslems don't just talk; they act out their beliefs.

Adams gave the British soldiers the defense they deserved, but note that they were charged with a crime. As part of their defense, Adams made an eloquent defense of American principles, but it was less a free speech case than a free trial one.

Both Marxism and Islam are absolutely, irreconcilably opposed to America as founded and Constituted, and cannot coexist with her. No Marxist, and no Moslem, can truthfully take any oath of office, or any oath, including the oath to enter the American military, in which they must swear allegiance to and defense of our Constitution. It would have to be a false oath. They would have to be lying.

Neither Marxism nor Islam can coexist with Constitutional America.

Both Marxism and Islam seek the eventual destruction of Constitutional America.

Why should Americans accept absolute, proactive, violent and destructive intolerance of themselves, their Constitution, their laws and their nation?

Unfortunately, 98% of the people look at any “fix it all” efforts as to how it will impact their own short term self interest. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead Blog (www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com).

Robert A. HallMassachusetts Senate, 1973-83Author: "The Coming Collapse of the American Republic"For a free 80-page PDF of this book, write me at

My gut tells me that you are right - the inpenetrable "moron vote" seems forever ascendent - but my heart, mind and soul pray that you are wrong, and that there is a significant turning going on, even among the moron vote.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Nov 06 06:33:08 2013From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Added link to a Michael Voris video to the page, highlighting the social taboos of addressing sex, religion and politics in polite company.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Jun 02 2014From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL and name from Thinking Catholic Strategic Center toCatholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option yesterday, June 1, 2014, and it appears to have worked this morning. Still finding my way around.

Thank you for your greeting Lyman. I enjoyed listening to you on Roku yesterday on the Survival America Network. You reminded me of what is best about America. I'm half American: my mother's family was from Spencer Iowa area which is east of Sioux City...

Grampa's wife, my Gramma Cora was from Nebraska and she was Aunt to actress Jane Wyman, who was Ronald Reagan's first wife as I'm sure you know, so its a small world, isn't it?

I went to Liberal and spoiled Stanford, though we weren't nearly as Liberal as U.C. Berkeley! And at least we have the good conservative 'Think Tank:" the Hoover Institute, where I saw Alexander Solzhenitzen one day: I walked by him on the sidewalk (my claim to fame!) where there was just the two of us approaching and then passing each other! I didn't interrupt his train of thought, I figured it was best that way. lol

My Dad's family was from England in the Cotswolds, a very lovely part of England to say the least. Dad became a Conservative Member of Parliament in Canada for over two decades, and was there long-serving Justice Critic during the long silly years of Canada's Obama by the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau! Dad was a Goldwater, Nixon, Haig, and a Reagan fan. He met once Gerald Ford in D.C. on an early morning jogg in the park area of where they were holding a Inter-Parliamentary Conference. Dad was not shy, so he walked over to the POTUS and started an early morning chat with him. He liked him too!

Another interesting antidote was that Dad was invited to the LBJ Ranch, because he had gotten Dean Rusk's daughter and girlfriend out of a Banff jail one night and succeeded in quashing legally a marijuana possession charge. Canada's Minister of Justice called Dad because he was a good lawyer and the offence was a part of his constituency. I've never done much of a search on that to see if there was any knowledge the Media had of that day! The judge threw the charge out in the interest of Canada - U.S. relations and national security! lol.

My Dad reached the front bench of Parliament but like Mr Goldwater was excluded from power's inner circle because of his honest directness with everything, which he was forcefull about it too and people are uncomfortable with that. So he was an unhappy man kind of like Enoch Powell, the Conservative in the UK who warned them about the trouble they were creating by letting in all the Muslims in Britain. So he too was shunned.

So I thought you might find those anecdotes interesting. I wish you a great long weekend; we have one here too.

Yours Truly,

Shane Leslie Mattison (Woolliams, my Dad's name was Eldon Mattison Woolliams, which you can google him. Our 'CBC' such a lefty outfit like the BBC - that they have kept public a clipping where Dad is being interviewed a long time ago by David Frum's mother Barbara Frum - a flaming liberal like Nancy Pelosi! In the interview my Dad says in a now archaic way that the "gays" can be sent somewhere to be "fixed" - that its possible they could be cured! Which is true, but it was politically incorrect then let alone now which is why the CBC keeps the clip - to make Conservatives look like "barbaric red-necks" - same old, same old eh?

Date: Sat Aug 30 2014From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Shane:

What a delightful post. Your dad has quite a writeup in Wikipedia. Welcome to my site.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar
one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or
introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our
standards of logical rigor and civil discourse. We will not
participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely
trading insults. Participants should not be
thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to
defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a
coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t
embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, immoral or merely insulting submissions will
not be published here. If you have something serious to contribute to
the conversation, back it up, keep it clean and keep it civil. We humbly
apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say
these things, but the New Liberals are what they are, and the internet is what it is.

If you fear repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information.

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

"We've had enough of exhortations to be silent!
Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten
because of silence." Saint Catherine of Siena

…There he goes again, trying to pick another fight with someone…

Pick a webpage, any webpage; pick a subject, any subject. Or start your own New Subject. Then draw your rhetorical sword and step out onto the field of honor. So, what are you waiting for? Stand up; come on out here.

Never be lukewarm.Life itself demands passion.He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.

Welcome to my website.

Catholic American Thinker Free E-zine Subscription

Enter Your E-mail Address

Enter Your First Name (optional)

Then

Don't worry — your e-mail address is totally secure.
I promise to use it only to send you Catholic American Thinker.

Old North Dayton
is looking forA Few Good Men
who are Catholic Priests, retired, about to retire or available for reasignment.CLICK HEREYou are a priest forever, of the Order of Melchizedek.

Atheist Genesis:

In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing.
And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally encountered other bits of everything and formed some new kinds of everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into self-replicating bits of everything.
And then some self-replicating bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into dinosaurs.
See?

“ … for I have sworn upon
the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind
of man.” wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush in
the year of our Lord 1800. The context
involved resistance to any form of Christianity or Deism legally imposing
itself throughout the USA. We must wonder what he might say
about our current government's forced imposition of strict secularism – i.e.,
anti-theism – throughout the USA. I submit that legally enforced secularism of society, like theocracy, like Marxism,
and like Islam, is, precisely, a form of tyranny over the mind of man.Nothing good can come from the religious cleansing of Judeo-Christian society. Government imposed secularism is just another form of theocracy.